Adam Hair wrote:
Some people have made up their minds not to test those engines based
on their personal thoughts and motivations, not due to pressure from
commercial authors.
as is your perfect right to do
although it would probably make some sense for the two major testing groups to at least make a "policy statement" on their web sites regarding the testing of Ippo and family engines
after all ..its not as if one member of the group chooses to test the Ippo engines then his results will be posted and incorporated into the rating lists .it wouldn't be
there must be some policy that the group members decided upon
no harm in making that policy known and public on their web page
the Great Derivatives Debate is certainly a big enough issue and has been around long enough now for the groups to at least make a mention/comment about them
Regards
Steve
Perhaps so. I don't know if there was any internal discussion before I
joined the CCRL. There hasn't been any since I joined, not that there
needed to be any. Perhaps if some policy was publically known before
all of this started, then there would be less sniping. Probably not.
SzG wrote:However, the matter is approached from the wrong side. Ippolit development (if ever there was such a thing) has apparently stopped. Its derivatives are developed by people who lack invention, originality and creativity, maybe also technical skills. I can see no chance, however high they are placed now, that they will be able to make significant progress. Funny that every new version of a derivative is claimed to be at least 20 Elo stronger than the previous one, still they are at the same 3300 level where they were half a year ago.
Lol, says someone whose highest technical skills achievement is to setup a GUI. This is really hilarious.
And if you do not test these engines how do you know their strength?
The thing I find really funny about you "amateur" testers is that you actually spend at least 30% of your processor time testing Ippo family engines but your are so ashamed to admit it (credit due to some rare members of your community who are not hypocritical and have guts to admit it) and even more scared to publish it...
SzG wrote:BTW, Arena is great (yes, I got it free, hence the praise), just testing Alex 2.07a for CCRL with it (no crash, no time forfeit, v2.0.1).
With TCs you use, any GUI would do. However, any serious engine developer needs a GUI that can be used in 10s/game or faster TC. Arena is simply useless there. I doubt anything will change with a new version.
On the other hand WB works just fine.
You are correct there. However, I've never seen Michael tout
Arena as the ideal GUI for engine developers.
Adam Hair wrote:
Some people have made up their minds not to test those engines based
on their personal thoughts and motivations, not due to pressure from
commercial authors.
as is your perfect right to do
although it would probably make some sense for the two major testing groups to at least make a "policy statement" on their web sites regarding the testing of Ippo and family engines
after all ..its not as if one member of the group chooses to test the Ippo engines then his results will be posted and incorporated into the rating lists .it wouldn't be
there must be some policy that the group members decided upon
no harm in making that policy known and public on their web page
the Great Derivatives Debate is certainly a big enough issue and has been around long enough now for the groups to at least make a mention/comment about them
Regards
Steve
Perhaps so. I don't know if there was any internal discussion before I
joined the CCRL. There hasn't been any since I joined, not that there
needed to be any. Perhaps if some policy was publically known before
all of this started, then there would be less sniping. Probably not.
No decision will be popular. At the moment, no ip* programs can play in tournaments. Some agree. Some don't. So far, none are rated either. Some agree. Some don't. No matter what is done, one group will be unhappy, which is expected.
bob wrote:The problem is that your second statement assumes facts without no supporting evidence. IP* and friends _may_ be clones. Or they might not be. There's enough suspicion to not allow them into normal tournaments. But suspicion is not enough to state as fact that they are "illegal clones". For that, one needs evidence, of which we have none to speak of.
Well, I don't state it as a fact. I state as an opinion, like everything I state is always my opinion. Anyway, the point really was that those freetards should stop wheening to get other people to do what they could just as easily (or difficultly, depending on how you look at it) do themselves.
Don't disagree there. Testing time is limited. If someone doesn't care about the ip* family, I certainly see no reason to waste limited resources testing them. Those that do want the results are certainly free to run their own events and post their results whenever they want...
Which means that the vast majority of the gum-flapping on this subject,
including my own, is superfluous. Borderline, if not completely, inane.
bob wrote:
No decision will be popular. At the moment, no ip* programs can play in tournaments. Some agree. Some don't. So far, none are rated either. Some agree. Some don't. No matter what is done, one group will be unhappy, which is expected.
In the not very remote past, during a big debate about the legitimity of the Ippolit family, I (and others as well) was attacked by a poster saying 'they test anything', meaning that we gladly accept engines of questionable origin (alleged clones). I was even placed on a black list.
And what do I see now? I am attacked for not testing the Ippolit family!
